< draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-20.txt		draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-21.txt >
	6lo P. Thubert, Ed.		6lo P. Thubert, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Internet-Draft Cisco
	Updates: 8505 (if approved) B. Sarikaya		Updates: 8505 (if approved) B. Sarikaya
	Intended status: Standards Track		Intended status: Standards Track
	Expires: 10 September 2020 M. Sethi		Expires: 22 October 2020 M. Sethi
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	R. Struik		R. Struik
	Struik Security Consultancy		Struik Security Consultancy
	9 March 2020		20 April 2020
	Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks		Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks
	draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-20		draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-21
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document updates the 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol		This document updates the 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol
	defined in RFC 6775 and RFC 8505. The new extension is called		defined in RFC 6775 and RFC 8505. The new extension is called
	Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) and it protects the		Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) and it protects the
	owner of an address against address theft and impersonation attacks		owner of an address against address theft and impersonation attacks
	in a low-power and lossy network (LLN). Nodes supporting this		in a low-power and lossy network (LLN). Nodes supporting this
	extension compute a cryptographic identifier (Crypto-ID) and use it		extension compute a cryptographic identifier (Crypto-ID) and use it
	with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The Crypto-ID		with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The Crypto-ID
	skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 September 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 October 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Updating RFC 8505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Updating RFC 8505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. New Fields and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. New Fields and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. New Crypto-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. New Crypto-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. Updated EARO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.2. Updated EARO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3. Crypto-ID Parameters Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3. Crypto-ID Parameters Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.4. NDP Signature Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.4. NDP Signature Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. Protocol Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.5. Extensions to the Capability Indication Option . . . . . 11
	6. Protocol Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Protocol Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1. First Exchange with a 6LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Protocol Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.2. NDPSO generation and verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.1. First Exchange with a 6LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	6.3. Multihop Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6.2. NDPSO generation and verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.3. Multihop Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	7.1. Inheriting from RFC 3971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.2. Related to 6LoWPAN ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.1. Inheriting from RFC 3971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.3. ROVR Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7.2. Related to 6LoWPAN ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	7.4. Implementation Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7.3. ROVR Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.5. Cross-Algorithm and Cross-Protocol Attacks . . . . . . . 20		7.4. Implementation Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.6. Compromised 6LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.5. Cross-Algorithm and Cross-Protocol Attacks . . . . . . . 21
			7.6. Compromised 6LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7.7. Correlating Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		7.7. Correlating Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8.1. CGA Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		8.1. CGA Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8.2. IPv6 ND option types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		8.2. IPv6 ND option types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8.3. Crypto-Type Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		8.3. Crypto-Type Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8.4. New Codepoints Associated to JWK Encoding . . . . . . . . 22		8.4. New Codepoints Associated to JWK Encoding . . . . . . . . 23
	8.4.1. COSE Elliptic Curves Registration . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.4.1. JOSE Elliptic Curves Registration . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.4.2. COSE Algorithms Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.4.2. JOSE Algorithms Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	8.4.3. JOSE Elliptic Curves Registration . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.4.4. JOSE Algorithms Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	11. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		11. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	Appendix A. Requirements Addressed in this Document . . . . . . 28		Appendix A. Requirements Addressed in this Document . . . . . . 28
	Appendix B. Representation Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		Appendix B. Representation Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	B.1. Signature Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		B.1. Signature Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	B.2. Integer Representation for ECDSA signatures . . . . . . . 29		B.2. Integer Representation for ECDSA signatures . . . . . . . 30
	B.3. Alternative Representations of Curve25519 . . . . . . . . 30		B.3. Alternative Representations of Curve25519 . . . . . . . . 30
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for 6LoWPAN networks [RFC6775]		Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for 6LoWPAN networks [RFC6775]
	(6LoWPAN ND) adapts the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND)		(6LoWPAN ND) adapts the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND)
	protocols defined in [RFC4861] and [RFC4862] for constrained low-		protocols defined in [RFC4861] and [RFC4862] for constrained low-
	power and lossy network (LLN). In particular, 6LoWPAN ND introduces		power and lossy network (LLN). In particular, 6LoWPAN ND introduces
	a unicast host Address Registration mechanism that reduces the use of		a unicast host Address Registration mechanism that reduces the use of
	multicast compared to the Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) mechanism		multicast compared to the Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) mechanism
	defined in IPv6 ND. 6LoWPAN ND defines a new Address Registration		defined in IPv6 ND. 6LoWPAN ND defines a new Address Registration
	skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶
	use of an address if that address is already registered in the subnet		use of an address if that address is already registered in the subnet
	(first come first serve). In order to validate address ownership,		(first come first serve). In order to validate address ownership,
	the registration mechanism enables the 6LR and 6LBR to validate the		the registration mechanism enables the 6LR and 6LBR to validate the
	association between the registered address of a node, and its		association between the registered address of a node, and its
	Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR). The ROVR is defined in		Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR). The ROVR is defined in
	"Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery" [RFC8505]		"Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery" [RFC8505]
	and it can be derived from the MAC address of the device (using the		and it can be derived from the MAC address of the device (using the
	64-bit Extended Unique Identifier EUI-64 address format specified by		64-bit Extended Unique Identifier EUI-64 address format specified by
	IEEE). However, the EUI-64 can be spoofed, and therefore, any node		IEEE). However, the EUI-64 can be spoofed, and therefore, any node
	connected to the subnet and aware of a registered-address-to-ROVR		connected to the subnet and aware of a registered-address-to-ROVR
	mapping could effectively fake the ROVR. This would allow the an		mapping could effectively fake the ROVR. This would allow an
	attacker to steal the address and redirect traffic for that address.		attacker to steal the address and redirect traffic for that address.
	[RFC8505] defines an Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)		[RFC8505] defines an Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)
	option that allows to transport alternate forms of ROVRs, and is a		option that transports alternate forms of ROVRs, and is a pre-
	pre-requisite for this specification.		requisite for this specification.
	In this specification, a 6LN generates a cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID)		In this specification, a 6LN generates a cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID)
	and places it in the ROVR field during the registration of one (or		and places it in the ROVR field during the registration of one (or
	more) of its addresses with the 6LR(s). Proof of ownership of the		more) of its addresses with the 6LR(s). Proof of ownership of the
	Crypto-ID is passed with the first registration exchange to a new		Crypto-ID is passed with the first registration exchange to a new
	6LR, and enforced at the 6LR. The 6LR validates ownership of the		6LR, and enforced at the 6LR. The 6LR validates ownership of the
	cryptographic ID before it creates any new registration state, or		cryptographic ID before it creates any new registration state, or
	changes existing information.		changes existing information.
	The protected address registration protocol proposed in this document		The protected address registration protocol proposed in this document
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 37 ¶
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	2.1. BCP 14		2.1. BCP 14
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2.2. Abbreviations		2.2. Additional References
			The reader may get additional context for this specification from the
			following references:
			* "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)" [RFC3971],
			* "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)" [RFC3972],
			* "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC4861] ,
			* "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862], and
			* "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
			Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals " [RFC4919].
			2.3. Abbreviations
	This document uses the following abbreviations:		This document uses the following abbreviations:
	6BBR: 6LoWPAN Backbone Router		6BBR: 6LoWPAN Backbone Router
	6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router		6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router
	6LN: 6LoWPAN Node		6LN: 6LoWPAN Node
	6LR: 6LoWPAN Router		6LR: 6LoWPAN Router
			CGA: Cryptographically Generated Address
	EARO: Extended Address Registration Option		EARO: Extended Address Registration Option
			ECDH: Elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman
			ECDSA: Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
	CIPO: Crypto-ID Parameters Option		CIPO: Crypto-ID Parameters Option
	LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network		LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network
			JSON: JavaScript Object Notation
			JOSE: JavaScript Object Signing and Encryption
			JWK: JSON Web Key
			JWS: JSON Web Signature
	NA: Neighbor Advertisement		NA: Neighbor Advertisement
	ND: Neighbor Discovery		ND: Neighbor Discovery
			NDP: Neighbor Discovery Protocol
	NDPSO: Neighbor Discovery Protocol Signature Option		NDPSO: Neighbor Discovery Protocol Signature Option
	NS: Neighbor Solicitation		NS: Neighbor Solicitation
	ROVR: Registration Ownership Verifier		ROVR: Registration Ownership Verifier
	RA: Router Advertisement		RA: Router Advertisement
	RS: Router Solicitation		RS: Router Solicitation
	RSAO: RSA Signature Option		RSAO: RSA Signature Option
			SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm
			SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
	TID: Transaction ID		TID: Transaction ID
	2.3. Additional References
	The reader may get additional context for this specification from the
	following references:
	* "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)" [RFC3971],
	* "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)" [RFC3972],
	* "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC4861] ,
	* "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862], and
	* "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
	Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals " [RFC4919].
	3. Updating RFC 8505		3. Updating RFC 8505
	Section 5.3 of [RFC8505] introduces the ROVR that is used to detect		Section 5.3 of [RFC8505] introduces the ROVR that is used to detect
	and reject duplicate registrations in the DAD process. The ROVR is a		and reject duplicate registrations in the DAD process. The ROVR is a
	generic object that is designed for both backward compatibility and		generic object that is designed for both backward compatibility and
	the capability to introduce new computation methods in the future.		the capability to introduce new computation methods in the future.
	Using a Crypto-ID per this specification is the RECOMMENDED method.		Using a Crypto-ID per this specification is the RECOMMENDED method.
	Section 7.3 discusses collisions when heterogeneous methods to		Section 7.3 discusses collisions when heterogeneous methods to
	compute the ROVR field coexist inside a same network.		compute the ROVR field coexist inside a same network.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 25 ¶
	Modifier: 8-bit unsigned integer. Set to an arbitrary value by the		Modifier: 8-bit unsigned integer. Set to an arbitrary value by the
	creator of the Crypto-ID. The role of the modifier is to enable		creator of the Crypto-ID. The role of the modifier is to enable
	the formation of multiple Crypto-IDs from a same key pair, which		the formation of multiple Crypto-IDs from a same key pair, which
	reduces the traceability and thus improves the privacy of a		reduces the traceability and thus improves the privacy of a
	constrained node that could not maintain many key-pairs.		constrained node that could not maintain many key-pairs.
	EARO Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The option length of the EARO		EARO Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The option length of the EARO
	that contains the Crypto-ID associated with the CIPO.		that contains the Crypto-ID associated with the CIPO.
	Reserved2: 16-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the		Reserved2: 8-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the
	sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.		sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
	Public Key: A variable-length field, size indicated in the Public		Public Key: A variable-length field, size indicated in the Public
	Key Length field. JWK-Encoded Public Key [RFC7517].		Key Length field. JWK-encoded Public Key [RFC7517].
	Padding: A variable-length field completing the Public Key field to		Padding: A variable-length field completing the Public Key field to
	align to the next 8-bytes boundary. It MUST be set to zero by the		align to the next 8-bytes boundary. It MUST be set to zero by the
	sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.		sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
	The implementation of multiple hash functions in a constrained		The implementation of multiple hash functions in a constrained
	devices may consume excessive amounts of program memory. This		devices may consume excessive amounts of program memory. This
	specification enables the use of SHA-256 [RFC6234] for all the		specification enables the use of SHA-256 [RFC6234] for all the
	supported ECC curves.		supported ECC curves.
	Some code factorization is also possible for the ECC computation		Some code factorization is also possible for the ECC computation
	itself. [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS] provides information on how to		itself. [CURVE-REPR] provides information on how to represent
	represent Montgomery curves and (twisted) Edwards curves as curves in		Montgomery curves and (twisted) Edwards curves as curves in short-
	short-Weierstrass form and illustrates how this can be used to		Weierstrass form and illustrates how this can be used to implement
	implement elliptic curve computations using existing implementations		elliptic curve computations using existing implementations that
	that already provide, e.g., ECDSA and ECDH using NIST [FIPS186-4]		already provide, e.g., ECDSA and ECDH using NIST [FIPS186-4] prime
	prime curves. For more details on representation conventions, we		curves. For more details on representation conventions, we refer to
	refer to Appendix B.		Appendix B.
	4.4. NDP Signature Option		4.4. NDP Signature Option
	This specification defines the NDP Signature Option (NDPSO). The		This specification defines the NDP Signature Option (NDPSO). The
	NDPSO carries the signature that proves the ownership of the Crypto-		NDPSO carries the signature that proves the ownership of the Crypto-
	ID. The format of the NDPSO is illustrated in Figure 3.		ID. The format of the NDPSO is illustrated in Figure 3.
	As opposed to the RSA Signature Option (RSAO) defined in section 5.2.		As opposed to the RSA Signature Option (RSAO) defined in section 5.2.
	of SEND [RFC3971], the NDPSO does not have a key hash field.		of SEND [RFC3971], the NDPSO does not have a key hash field.
	Instead, the leftmost 128 bits of the ROVR field in the EARO are used		Instead, the leftmost 128 bits of the ROVR field in the EARO are used
	skipping to change at page 11, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 19 ¶
	Reserved1: 5-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the		Reserved1: 5-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the
	sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.		sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
	Digital Signature Length: 11-bit unsigned integer. The length of		Digital Signature Length: 11-bit unsigned integer. The length of
	the Digital Signature field in bytes.		the Digital Signature field in bytes.
	Reserved2: 32-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the		Reserved2: 32-bit unsigned integer. It MUST be set to zero by the
	sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.		sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
	Digital Signature: A variable-length field containing a digital		Digital Signature: A variable-length field containing the JWS-
	signature. The length and computation of the digital signature		encoded digital signature[RFC7515]. The length and computation of
	both depend on the Crypto-Type which is found in the associated		the digital signature both depend on the Crypto-Type which is
	CIPO. For the values of the Crypto-Type that are defined in this		found in the associated CIPO, see Appendix B.2. For the values of
	specification, and unless specified otherwise for a future value		the Crypto-Type defined in this specification, and for future
	of the Crypto-Type, the signature is computed as detailed in		values of the Crypto-Type unless specified otherwise, the
	Section 6.2.		signature is computed as detailed in Section 6.2.
	Padding: A variable-length field completing the Digital Signature		Padding: A variable-length field completing the Digital Signature
	field to align to the next 8-bytes boundary. It MUST be set to		field to align to the next 8-bytes boundary. It MUST be set to
	zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.		zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
			4.5. Extensions to the Capability Indication Option
			This specification defines 2 new capability bits in the 6CIO, defined
			by [RFC7400] for use by the 6LR and 6LBR in IPv6 ND RA messages.
			The "A" flag indicates that AP-ND is enabled in the network. It is
			set by the 6LBR that serves the network and propagated by the 6LRs.
			The "J" flag indicates that the 6LR supports JWK-encoded keys in the
			CIPO option.
			0 1 2 3
			0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Type | Length = 1 | Reserved |J|A|D|L|B|P|E|G|
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Reserved |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			Figure 4: New Capability Bits in the 6CIO
			New Option Fields:
			J: 1-bit flag. This 6LR supports AP-ND with JWK encoding
			A: 1-bit flag. This network supports AP-ND
	5. Protocol Scope		5. Protocol Scope
	The scope of the protocol specified here is a 6LoWPAN LLN, typically		The scope of the protocol specified here is a 6LoWPAN LLN, typically
	a stub network connected to a larger IP network via a Border Router		a stub network connected to a larger IP network via a Border Router
	called a 6LBR per [RFC6775]. A 6LBR has sufficient capability to		called a 6LBR per [RFC6775]. A 6LBR has sufficient capability to
	satisfy the needs of duplicate address detection.		satisfy the needs of duplicate address detection.
	The 6LBR maintains registration state for all devices in its attached		The 6LBR maintains registration state for all devices in its attached
	LLN. Together with the first-hop router (the 6LR), the 6LBR assures		LLN. Together with the first-hop router (the 6LR), the 6LBR assures
	uniqueness and grants ownership of an IPv6 address before it can be		uniqueness and grants ownership of an IPv6 address before it can be
	skipping to change at page 11, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 38 ¶
	|		|
	+-----+		+-----+
	| | 6LBR		| | 6LBR
	+-----+		+-----+
	o o o		o o o
	o o o o		o o o o
	o o LLN o o o		o o LLN o o o
	o o o (6LR)		o o o (6LR)
	o (6LN)		o (6LN)
	Figure 4: Basic Configuration		Figure 5: Basic Configuration
	In a mesh network, the 6LR is directly connected to the host device.		In a mesh network, the 6LR is directly connected to the host device.
	This specification mandates that the peer-wise layer-2 security is		This specification mandates that the peer-wise layer-2 security is
	deployed so that all the packets from a particular host are securely		deployed so that all the packets from a particular host are securely
	identifiable by the 6LR. The 6LR may be multiple hops away from the		identifiable by the 6LR. The 6LR may be multiple hops away from the
	6LBR. Packets are routed between the 6LR and the 6LBR via other		6LBR. Packets are routed between the 6LR and the 6LBR via other
	6LRs. This specification mandates that a chain of trust is		6LRs.
	established so that a packet that was validated by the first 6LR can
	be safely routed by other on-path 6LRs to the 6LBR.		This specification mandates that a chain of trust is established so
			that a packet that was validated by the first 6LR can be safely
			routed by other on-path 6LRs to the 6LBR.
	6. Protocol Flows		6. Protocol Flows
	The 6LR/6LBR ensures first-come/first-serve by storing the ROVR		The 6LR/6LBR ensures first-come/first-serve by storing the ROVR
	associated to the address being registered upon the first		associated to the address being registered upon the first
	registration and rejecting a registration with a different ROVR		registration and rejecting a registration with a different ROVR
	value. A 6LN can claim any address as long as it is the first to		value. A 6LN can claim any address as long as it is the first to
	make that claim. After a successful registration, the 6LN becomes		make that claim. After a successful registration, the 6LN becomes
	the owner of the registered address and the address is bound to the		the owner of the registered address and the address is bound to the
	ROVR value in the 6LR/6LBR registry.		ROVR value in the 6LR/6LBR registry.
			This specification protects the ownership of the address. Its use in
			a network is signaled by the 6LBR by setting the 'A' flag in the
			6CIO. This is echoed by the 6LRs, that also indicate the key
			encoding format that they support in another 6CIO flag, currently the
			'J' flag for JWK.
			When using a ROVR that is a Crypto-ID, a 6LN MUST use a 6LR that
			supports the key encoding used in the CIPO. If the 6LR does not
			support the Crypto-Type, it MUST reply with an EARO Status 10
			"Validation Failed" without a challenge. In that case, the 6LN may
			try another Crypto-Type until it falls back to Crypto-Type 0 that
			MUST be supported by all 6LRs.
	This specification enables the 6LR to challenge the 6LN to verify its		This specification enables the 6LR to challenge the 6LN to verify its
	ownership of the binding by placing a Crypto-ID in the ROVR. The		ownership of the binding by placing a Crypto-ID in the ROVR. The
	challenge can happen at any time at the discretion of the 6LR. The		challenge can happen at any time at the discretion of the 6LR. The
	6LR MUST challenge the 6LN when it creates a binding and when a new		6LR MUST challenge the 6LN when it creates a binding and when a new
	registration attempts to change a parameter of the binding that		registration attempts to change a parameter of the binding that
	identifies the 6LN, for instance its Source Link-Layer Address. The		identifies the 6LN, for instance its Source Link-Layer Address. The
	verification protects against a rogue that would steal an address and		verification protects against a rogue that would steal an address and
	attract its traffic, or use it as source address.		attract its traffic, or use it as source address.
	The challenge can also triggered by the 6LBR, e.g., to enforce a		The challenge can also triggered by the 6LBR, e.g., to enforce a
	skipping to change at page 13, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 11 ¶
	addresses. The 6LN MAY use the same Crypto-ID to prove the ownership		addresses. The 6LN MAY use the same Crypto-ID to prove the ownership
	of multiple IPv6 addresses. The 6LN MAY also derive multiple Crypto-		of multiple IPv6 addresses. The 6LN MAY also derive multiple Crypto-
	IDs from a same key.		IDs from a same key.
	6.1. First Exchange with a 6LR		6.1. First Exchange with a 6LR
	A 6LN registers to a 6LR that is one hop away from it with the "C"		A 6LN registers to a 6LR that is one hop away from it with the "C"
	flag set in the EARO, indicating that the ROVR field contains a		flag set in the EARO, indicating that the ROVR field contains a
	Crypto-ID. The Target Address in the NS message indicates the IPv6		Crypto-ID. The Target Address in the NS message indicates the IPv6
	address that the 6LN is trying to register [RFC8505]. The on-link		address that the 6LN is trying to register [RFC8505]. The on-link
	(local) protocol interactions are shown in Figure 5. If the 6LR does		(local) protocol interactions are shown in Figure 6. If the 6LR does
	not have a state with the 6LN that is consistent with the NS(EARO),		not have a state with the 6LN that is consistent with the NS(EARO),
	then it replies with a challenge NA (EARO, status=Validation		then it replies with a challenge NA (EARO, status=Validation
	Requested) that contains a Nonce Option (shown as NonceLR in		Requested) that contains a Nonce Option (shown as NonceLR in
	Figure 5).		Figure 6).
	The Nonce option contains a nonce value that, to the extent possible
	for the implementation, was never employed in association with the
	key pair used to generate the Crypto-ID. This specification inherits
	from [RFC3971] that simply indicates that the nonce is a random
	value. Ideally, an implementation uses an unpredictable
	cryptographically random value [BCP 106]. But that may be
	impractical in some LLN scenarios where the devices do not have a
	guaranteed sense of time and for which computing complex hashes is
	detrimental to the battery lifetime. Alternatively, the device may
	use an always-incrementing value saved in the same stable storage as
	the key, so they are lost together, and starting at a best effort
	random value, either as the nonce value or as a component to its
	computation.
	The 6LN replies to the challenge with an NS(EARO) that includes a new
	Nonce option (shown as NonceLN in Figure 5), the CIPO (Section 4.3),
	and the NDPSO containing the signature. Both Nonces are included in
	the signed material. This provides a "contributory behavior", so
	that either party that knows it generates a good quality nonce knows
	that the protocol will be secure.
	The 6LR MUST store the information associated to a Crypto-ID on the
	first NS exchange where it appears in a fashion that the CIPO
	parameters can be retrieved from the Crypto-ID alone.
	6LN 6LR		6LN 6LR
	| |		| |
	|<------------------------- RA -------------------------|		|<------------------------- RA -------------------------|
	| | ^		| | ^
	|---------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------>| |		|---------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------>| |
	| | option		| | option
	|<- NA with EARO (status=Validation Requested), NonceLR-| |		|<- NA with EARO (status=Validation Requested), NonceLR-| |
	| | v		| | v
	|------- NS with EARO, CIPO, NonceLN and NDPSO -------->|		|------- NS with EARO, CIPO, NonceLN and NDPSO -------->|
	skipping to change at page 14, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 42 ¶
	| |		| |
	|<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|		|<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|
	| |		| |
	...		...
	| |		| |
	|--------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------->|		|--------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------->|
	| |		| |
	|<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|		|<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|
	| |		| |
	Figure 5: On-link Protocol Operation		Figure 6: On-link Protocol Operation
			The Nonce option contains a nonce value that, to the extent possible
			for the implementation, was never employed in association with the
			key pair used to generate the Crypto-ID. This specification inherits
			from [RFC3971] that simply indicates that the nonce is a random
			value. Ideally, an implementation uses an unpredictable
			cryptographically random value [BCP 106]. But that may be
			impractical in some LLN scenarios where the devices do not have a
			guaranteed sense of time and for which computing complex hashes is
			detrimental to the battery lifetime.
			Alternatively, the device may use an always-incrementing value saved
			in the same stable storage as the key, so they are lost together, and
			starting at a best effort random value, either as the nonce value or
			as a component to its computation.
			The 6LN replies to the challenge with an NS(EARO) that includes a new
			Nonce option (shown as NonceLN in Figure 6), the CIPO (Section 4.3),
			and the NDPSO containing the signature. Both Nonces are included in
			the signed material. This provides a "contributory behavior", so
			that either party that knows it generates a good quality nonce knows
			that the protocol will be secure.
			The 6LR MUST store the information associated to a Crypto-ID on the
			first NS exchange where it appears in a fashion that the CIPO
			parameters can be retrieved from the Crypto-ID alone.
	The steps for the registration to the 6LR are as follows:		The steps for the registration to the 6LR are as follows:
	* Upon the first exchange with a 6LR, a 6LN will be challenged to		* Upon the first exchange with a 6LR, a 6LN will be challenged to
	prove ownership of the Crypto-ID and the Target Address being		prove ownership of the Crypto-ID and the Target Address being
	registered in the Neighbor Solicitation message. When a 6LR		registered in the Neighbor Solicitation message. When a 6LR
	receives a NS(EARO) registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR,		receives a NS(EARO) registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR,
	and unless the registration is rejected for another reason, it		and unless the registration is rejected for another reason, it
	MUST challenge by responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of		MUST challenge by responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of
	"Validation Requested".		"Validation Requested".
	skipping to change at page 15, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 8 ¶
	steps as the 6LN and rebuilds the Crypto-ID based on the		steps as the 6LN and rebuilds the Crypto-ID based on the
	parameters in the CIPO. If the rebuilt Crypto-ID matches the		parameters in the CIPO. If the rebuilt Crypto-ID matches the
	ROVR, the 6LN also verifies the signature contained in the NDPSO		ROVR, the 6LN also verifies the signature contained in the NDPSO
	option. If at that point the signature in the NDPSO option can be		option. If at that point the signature in the NDPSO option can be
	verified, then the validation succeeds. Otherwise the validation		verified, then the validation succeeds. Otherwise the validation
	fails.		fails.
	* If the 6LR fails to validate the signed NS(EARO), it responds with		* If the 6LR fails to validate the signed NS(EARO), it responds with
	a status of "Validation Failed". After receiving a NA(EARO) with		a status of "Validation Failed". After receiving a NA(EARO) with
	a status of "Validation Failed", the registering node SHOULD try		a status of "Validation Failed", the registering node SHOULD try
	to register an alternate target address in the NS message.		and alternate Crypto-Type and if even Crypto-Type 0 fails, it may
			try to register a different address in the NS message.
	6.2. NDPSO generation and verification		6.2. NDPSO generation and verification
	The signature generated by the 6LN to provide proof-of-ownership of		The signature generated by the 6LN to provide proof-of-ownership of
	the private-key is carried in the NDP Signature Option (NDPSO). It		the private-key is carried in the NDP Signature Option (NDPSO). It
	is generated by the 6LN in a fashion that depends on the Crypto-Type		is generated by the 6LN in a fashion that depends on the Crypto-Type
	(see Table 2 in Section 8.3) chosen by the 6LN as follows:		(see Table 2 in Section 8.3) chosen by the 6LN as follows:
	* Concatenate the following in the order listed:		* Concatenate the following in the order listed:
	1. The 128-bit Message Type tag [RFC3972] (in network byte		1. The 128-bit Message Type tag [RFC3972] (in network byte
	order). For this specification the tag is 0x8701 55c8 0cca		order). For this specification the tag is 0x8701 55c8 0cca
	dd32 6ab7 e415 f148 84d0. (The tag value has been generated		dd32 6ab7 e415 f148 84d0. (The tag value has been generated
	by the editor of this specification on random.org).		by the editor of this specification on random.org).
	2. JWK-encoded public key		2. the CIPO
	3. the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) sent in the		3. the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) sent in the
	Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address which		Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address which
	the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.		the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.
	4. NonceLR received from the 6LR (in network byte order) in the		4. NonceLR received from the 6LR (in network byte order) in the
	Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The nonce is at least 6		Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The nonce is at least 6
	bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].		bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].
	5. NonceLN sent from the 6LN (in network byte order). The nonce		5. NonceLN sent from the 6LN (in network byte order). The nonce
	is at least 6 bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].		is at least 6 bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].
	6. 1-byte Option Length of the EARO containing the Crypto-ID.		6. 1-byte Option Length of the EARO containing the Crypto-ID.
	7. 1-byte Crypto-Type value sent in the CIPO.
	* Apply the hash function (if any) specified by the Crypto-Type to		* Apply the hash function (if any) specified by the Crypto-Type to
	the concatenated data, e.g., hash the resulting data using SHA-		the concatenated data, e.g., hash the resulting data using SHA-
	256.		256.
	* Apply the signature algorithm specified by the Crypto-Type, e.g.,		* Apply the signature algorithm specified by the Crypto-Type, e.g.,
	sign the hash output with ECDSA (if curve P-256 is used) or sign		sign the hash output with ECDSA (if curve P-256 is used) or sign
	the hash with EdDSA (if curve Ed25519 (PureEdDSA)).		the hash with EdDSA (if curve Ed25519 (PureEdDSA)).
	The 6LR on receiving the NDPSO and CIPO options first checks that the		The 6LR on receiving the NDPSO and CIPO options first checks that the
	EARO Length in the CIPO matches the length of the EARO. If so it		EARO Length in the CIPO matches the length of the EARO. If so it
	regenerates the Crypto-ID based on the CIPO to make sure that the		regenerates the Crypto-ID based on the CIPO to make sure that the
	leftmost bits up to the size of the ROVR match.		leftmost bits up to the size of the ROVR match.
	If and only if the check is successful, it tries to verify the		If and only if the check is successful, it tries to verify the
	signature in the NDPSO option using the following:		signature in the NDPSO option using the following:
	* Concatenate the following in the order listed:		* Concatenate the following in the order listed:
	1. 128-bit type tag (in network byte order)		1. The 128-bit Message Type tag specified above (in network byte
	2. JWK-encoded public key received in the CIPO		order)
			2. the CIPO
	3. the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) received in		3. the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) received in
	the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address		the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address
	which the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.		which the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.
	4. NonceLR sent in the Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The		4. NonceLR sent in the Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The
	nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].		nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in [RFC3971].
	5. NonceLN received from the 6LN (in network byte order) in the		5. NonceLN received from the 6LN (in network byte order) in the
	NS message. The nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in		NS message. The nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in
	[RFC3971].		[RFC3971].
	6. 1-byte EARO Length received in the CIPO.		6. 1-byte EARO Length received in the CIPO.
	7. 1-byte Crypto-Type value received in the CIPO.
	* Apply the hash function (if any) specified by the Crypto-Type		* Apply the hash function (if any) specified by the Crypto-Type
	indicated by the 6LN in the CIPO to the concatenated data.		indicated by the 6LN in the CIPO to the concatenated data.
	* Verify the signature with the public-key in the CIPO and the		* Verify the signature with the public-key in the CIPO and the
	locally computed values using the signature algorithm specified by		locally computed values using the signature algorithm specified by
	the Crypto-Type. If the verification succeeds, the 6LR propagates		the Crypto-Type. If the verification succeeds, the 6LR propagates
	the information to the 6LBR using a EDAR/EDAC flow.		the information to the 6LBR using a EDAR/EDAC flow.
	* Due to the first-come/first-serve nature of the registration, if		* Due to the first-come/first-serve nature of the registration, if
	skipping to change at page 16, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 39 ¶
	ID and Target Address being registered to their respective		ID and Target Address being registered to their respective
	abstract database.		abstract database.
	6.3. Multihop Operation		6.3. Multihop Operation
	A new 6LN that joins the network auto-configures an address and		A new 6LN that joins the network auto-configures an address and
	performs an initial registration to a neighboring 6LR with an NS		performs an initial registration to a neighboring 6LR with an NS
	message that carries an Address Registration Option (EARO) [RFC8505].		message that carries an Address Registration Option (EARO) [RFC8505].
	In a multihop 6LoWPAN, the registration with Crypto-ID is propagated		In a multihop 6LoWPAN, the registration with Crypto-ID is propagated
	to 6LBR as shown in Figure 6, which illustrates the registration flow		to 6LBR as shown in Figure 7, which illustrates the registration flow
	all the way to a 6LowPAN Backbone Router (6BBR) [BACKBONE-ROUTER].		all the way to a 6LowPAN Backbone Router (6BBR) [BACKBONE-ROUTER].
	The 6LR and the 6LBR communicate using ICMPv6 Extended Duplicate		The 6LR and the 6LBR communicate using ICMPv6 Extended Duplicate
	Address Request (EDAR) and Extended Duplicate Address Confirmation		Address Request (EDAR) and Extended Duplicate Address Confirmation
	(EDAC) messages [RFC8505] as shown in Figure 6. This specification		(EDAC) messages [RFC8505] as shown in Figure 7. This specification
	extends EDAR/EDAC messages to carry cryptographically generated ROVR.		extends EDAR/EDAC messages to carry cryptographically generated ROVR.
	The assumption is that the 6LR and the 6LBR maintain a security		The assumption is that the 6LR and the 6LBR maintain a security
	association to authenticate and protect the integrity of the EDAR and		association to authenticate and protect the integrity of the EDAR and
	EDAC messages, so there is no need to propagate the proof of		EDAC messages, so there is no need to propagate the proof of
	ownership to the 6LBR. The 6LBR implicitly trusts that the 6LR		ownership to the 6LBR. The 6LBR implicitly trusts that the 6LR
	performs the verification when the 6LBR requires it, and if there is		performs the verification when the 6LBR requires it, and if there is
	no further exchange from the 6LR to remove the state, that the		no further exchange from the 6LR to remove the state, that the
	verification succeeded.		verification succeeded.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 35 ¶
	| | | | <wait>		| | | | <wait>
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | | proxy NA(EARO) |		| | | proxy NA(EARO) |
	| | |<---------------|		| | |<---------------|
	| | Extended DAC | |		| | Extended DAC | |
	| |<--------------| |		| |<--------------| |
	| NA(EARO) | | |		| NA(EARO) | | |
	|<---------------| | |		|<---------------| | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	Figure 6: (Re-)Registration Flow		Figure 7: (Re-)Registration Flow
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	7.1. Inheriting from RFC 3971		7.1. Inheriting from RFC 3971
	Observations regarding the following threats to the local network in		Observations regarding the following threats to the local network in
	[RFC3971] also apply to this specification.		[RFC3971] also apply to this specification.
	Neighbor Solicitation/Advertisement Spoofing: Threats in section		Neighbor Solicitation/Advertisement Spoofing: Threats in section
	9.2.1 of RFC3971 apply. AP-ND counters the threats on NS(EARO)		9.2.1 of RFC3971 apply. AP-ND counters the threats on NS(EARO)
	skipping to change at page 22, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 5 ¶
	8.3. Crypto-Type Subregistry		8.3. Crypto-Type Subregistry
	IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "Crypto-Type		IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "Crypto-Type
	Subregistry" in the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6		Subregistry" in the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
	(ICMPv6) Parameters". The registry is indexed by an integer in the		(ICMPv6) Parameters". The registry is indexed by an integer in the
	interval 0..255 and contains an Elliptic Curve, a Hash Function, a		interval 0..255 and contains an Elliptic Curve, a Hash Function, a
	Signature Algorithm, and Representation Conventions, as shown in		Signature Algorithm, and Representation Conventions, as shown in
	Table 2, which together specify a signature scheme. The following		Table 2, which together specify a signature scheme. The following
	Crypto-Type values are defined in this document:		Crypto-Type values are defined in this document:
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	| Crypto-Type | 0 (ECDSA256) | 1 (Ed25519) | 2 |		| Crypto-Type | 0 (ECDSA256) | 1 (Ed25519) | 2 |
	| value | | | (ECDSA25519) |		| value | | | (ECDSA25519) |
	+================+===============+===============+===============+		+================+================+================+================+
	| Elliptic curve | NIST P-256 | Curve25519 | Curve25519 |		| Elliptic curve | NIST P-256 | Curve25519 | Curve25519 |
	| | [FIPS186-4] | [RFC7748] | [RFC7748] |		| | [FIPS186-4] | [RFC7748] | [RFC7748] |
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	| Hash function | SHA-256 | SHA-512 | SHA-256 |		| Hash function | SHA-256 | SHA-512 | SHA-256 |
	| | [RFC6234] | [RFC6234] | [RFC6234] |		| | [RFC6234] | [RFC6234] | [RFC6234] |
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	| Signature | ECDSA | Ed25519 | ECDSA |		| Signature | ECDSA | Ed25519 | ECDSA |
	| algorithm | [FIPS186-4] | [RFC8032] | [FIPS186-4] |		| algorithm | [FIPS186-4] | [RFC8032] | [FIPS186-4] |
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	| Representation | Weierstrass, | Edwards, | Weierstrass, |		| Representation | Weierstrass, | Edwards, | Weierstrass, |
	| conventions | uncompressed, | compressed, | compressed, |		| conventions | uncompressed, | compressed, | compressed, |
	| | MSB/msb first | LSB/lsb first | MSB/msb first |		| | MSB/msb first, | LSB/lsb first, | MSB/msb |
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		| | [RFC7518] | [RFC8037] | first, |
	| Defining | This document | This document | This document |		| | | | [CURVE-REPR] |
	| specification | | | |		+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	+----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+		| Defining | This document | This document | This |
			| specification | | | document |
			+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
	Table 2: Crypto-Types		Table 2: Crypto-Types
	New Crypto-Type values providing similar or better security may be		New Crypto-Type values providing similar or better security may be
	defined in the future.		defined in the future.
	Assignment of new values for new Crypto-Type MUST be done through		Assignment of new values for new Crypto-Type MUST be done through
	IANA with either "Specification Required" or "IESG Approval" as		IANA with either "Specification Required" or "IESG Approval" as
	defined in BCP 26 [RFC8126].		defined in BCP 26 [RFC8126].
	The "Defining specification" column indicates the document that		The "Defining specification" column indicates the document that
	defines the length and computation of the digital signature, which		defines the length and computation of the digital signature, which
	could be this for values defined through "IESG Approval".		could be this for values defined through "IESG Approval".
	8.4. New Codepoints Associated to JWK Encoding		8.4. New Codepoints Associated to JWK Encoding
	Code points are requested for curve Wei25519 and its use with ECDSA,		Code points are requested for curve Wei25519 and its use with ECDSA,
	using the representation conventions of this document.		using the representation conventions of this document.
	8.4.1. COSE Elliptic Curves Registration		8.4.1. JOSE Elliptic Curves Registration
	This section registers the following value in the IANA "COSE Elliptic
	Curves" registry [IANA.COSE.Curves].
	Name: Wei25519
	Value: TBD (Requested value: -1)
	Key Type: EC2 or OKP (where OKP uses the MSB/msb representation of
	this specification)
	Description: short-Weierstrass curve Wei25519
	Change Controller: IESG
	Reference: Appendix E.3 of [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]
	Recommended: Yes.
	(Note that The "kty" value for Wei25519 may be "OKP" or "EC2".)
	8.4.2. COSE Algorithms Registration
	This section registers the following value in the IANA "COSE
	Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE.Algorithms].
	Name: ECDSA25519
	Value: TBD (Requested value: -1)
	Description: ECDSA using SHA-256 and curve Wei25519
	Change Controller: IESG
	Reference: Section 4.3 of [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]
	Recommended: Yes.
	8.4.3. JOSE Elliptic Curves Registration
	This section registers the following value in the IANA "JSON Web Key		This section registers the following value in the IANA "JSON Web Key
	Elliptic Curve" registry [IANA.JOSE.Curves].		Elliptic Curve" registry [IANA.JOSE.Curves].
	Curve Name: Wei25519		Curve Name: Wei25519
	Curve Description: short-Weierstrass curve Wei25519		Curve Description: short-Weierstrass curve Wei25519
	JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional		JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
	Change Controller: IESG		Change Controller: IESG
	Reference: Appendix E.3 of [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]		Reference: Appendix E.3 of [CURVE-REPR]
	8.4.4. JOSE Algorithms Registration		8.4.2. JOSE Algorithms Registration
	This section registers the following value in the IANA "JSON Web		This section registers the following value in the IANA "JSON Web
	Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms].		Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms].
	Algorithm Name: ECDSA25519		Algorithm Name: ECDSA25519
	Algorithm Description: ECDSA using SHA-256 and curve Wei25519		Algorithm Description: ECDSA using SHA-256 and curve Wei25519
	Algorithm Usage Locations: alg		Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
	JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional		JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
	Change Controller: IESG		Change Controller: IESG
	Reference: Section 4.3 of [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]		Reference: Section 4.3 of [CURVE-REPR]
	Algorithm Analysis Document(s): Section 4.3 of		Algorithm Analysis Document(s): Section 4.3 of [CURVE-REPR]
	[CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]
	9. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	Many thanks to Charlie Perkins for his in-depth review and		Many thanks to Charlie Perkins for his in-depth review and
	constructive suggestions. The authors are also especially grateful		constructive suggestions. The authors are also especially grateful
	to Robert Moskowitz and Benjamin Kaduk for their comments and		to Robert Moskowitz and Benjamin Kaduk for their comments and
	discussions that led to many improvements. The authors wish to also		discussions that led to many improvements. The authors wish to also
	thank Roman Danyliw, Alissa Cooper, Mirja Kuhlewind, Eric Vyncke,		thank Roman Danyliw, Alissa Cooper, Mirja Kuhlewind, Eric Vyncke,
	Vijay Gurbani, Al Morton and Adam Montville for their constructive		Vijay Gurbani, Al Morton and Adam Montville for their constructive
	reviews during the IESG process.		reviews during the IESG process.
	10. Normative References		10. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
			[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
			"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
			[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
			(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
	[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.		[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
	Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over		Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
	Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",		Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
	RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,		RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
			[RFC7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for
			IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
			(6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November
			2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>.
			[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
			Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
			2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
	[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,		[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
	"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
	[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves		[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
	for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January		for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
	2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.		2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
	[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital		[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
	Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,		Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
			[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.		[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
	Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power		Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
	Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor		Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
	Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,		Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
	[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
	(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
	[FIPS186-4]		[FIPS186-4]
	FIPS 186-4, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS), Federal		FIPS 186-4, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS), Federal
	Information Processing Standards Publication 186-4", US		Information Processing Standards Publication 186-4", US
	Department of Commerce/National Institute of Standards and		Department of Commerce/National Institute of Standards and
	Technology , July 2013.		Technology , July 2013.
	[SEC1] SEC1, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Version 2.0",		[SEC1] SEC1, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Version 2.0",
	Standards for Efficient Cryptography , June 2009.		Standards for Efficient Cryptography , June 2009.
	11. Informative references		11. Informative references
	[IANA.COSE.Algorithms]
	IANA, "COSE Algorithms", IANA,
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/
	cose.xhtml#algorithms.
	[IANA.COSE.Curves]
	IANA, "COSE Elliptic Curves", IANA,
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#elliptic-
	curves.
	[IANA.JOSE.Algorithms]		[IANA.JOSE.Algorithms]
	IANA, "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms",		IANA, "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms",
	IANA,		IANA,
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-		https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-
	signature-encryption-algorithms.		signature-encryption-algorithms.
	[IANA.JOSE.Curves]		[IANA.JOSE.Curves]
	IANA, "JSON Web Key Elliptic Curve", IANA,		IANA, "JSON Web Key Elliptic Curve", IANA,
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-key-		https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-key-
	elliptic-curve.		elliptic-curve.
	[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",		[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
	RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,		RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
			[BCP 106] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
			"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
	[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,		[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
	"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,		"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
	[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless		[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
	Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,		Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
			[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
			over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
			Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
			RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
	[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,		[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
	"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4		"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
	Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,		Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
	[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6		[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
	Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,		Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
	[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
	over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
	Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
	RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
	[BCP 106] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
	"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC7039] Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,		[RFC7039] Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,
	"Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",		"Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",
	RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,		RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7039>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7039>.
	[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque		[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
	Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address		Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
	Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,		Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
			[RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
	[BCP 201] Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm		[BCP 201] Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
	Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",		Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
	BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,		BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696>.
			[RFC8037] Liusvaara, I., "CFRG Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH)
			and Signatures in JSON Object Signing and Encryption
			(JOSE)", RFC 8037, DOI 10.17487/RFC8037, January 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8037>.
	[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,		[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
	"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",		"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
	RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,		RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
	[RFC8065] Thaler, D., "Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-		[RFC8065] Thaler, D., "Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-
	Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, DOI 10.17487/RFC8065,		Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, DOI 10.17487/RFC8065,
	February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>.		February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>.
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[BACKBONE-ROUTER]		[BACKBONE-ROUTER]
	Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6		Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6
	Backbone Router", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-		Backbone Router", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
	ietf-6lo-backbone-router-19, 3 March 2020,		ietf-6lo-backbone-router-20, 23 March 2020,
	<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-		<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-
	router-19>.		router-20>.
	[CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS]		[CURVE-REPR]
	Struik, R., "Alternative Elliptic Curve Representations",		Struik, R., "Alternative Elliptic Curve Representations",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lwig-curve-		Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lwig-curve-
	representations-08, 24 July 2019,		representations-09, 9 March 2020,
	<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-		<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-
	representations-08>.		representations-09>.
	[breaking-ed25519]		[breaking-ed25519]
	Samwel, N., Batina, L., Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., and R.		Samwel, N., Batina, L., Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., and R.
	Susella, "Breaking Ed25519 in WolfSSL", Cryptographers'		Susella, "Breaking Ed25519 in WolfSSL", Cryptographers'
	Track at the RSA Conference , 2018,		Track at the RSA Conference , 2018,
	<https://link.springer.com/		<https://link.springer.com/
	chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-76953-0_1>.		chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-76953-0_1>.
	Appendix A. Requirements Addressed in this Document		Appendix A. Requirements Addressed in this Document
	skipping to change at page 30, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 30, line 30 ¶
	represented as a point of a twisted Edwards curve or as a point of an		represented as a point of a twisted Edwards curve or as a point of an
	elliptic curve in short-Weierstrass form, via a coordinate		elliptic curve in short-Weierstrass form, via a coordinate
	transformation (a so-called isomorphic mapping). The parameters of		transformation (a so-called isomorphic mapping). The parameters of
	the Montgomery curve and the corresponding isomorphic curves in		the Montgomery curve and the corresponding isomorphic curves in
	twisted Edwards curve and short-Weierstrass form are as indicated		twisted Edwards curve and short-Weierstrass form are as indicated
	below. Here, the domain parameters of the Montgomery curve		below. Here, the domain parameters of the Montgomery curve
	Curve25519 and of the twisted Edwards curve Edwards25519 are as		Curve25519 and of the twisted Edwards curve Edwards25519 are as
	specified in [RFC7748]; the domain parameters of the elliptic curve		specified in [RFC7748]; the domain parameters of the elliptic curve
	Wei25519 in short-Weierstrass curve comply with Section 6.1.1 of		Wei25519 in short-Weierstrass curve comply with Section 6.1.1 of
	[FIPS186-4]. For details of the coordinate transformations		[FIPS186-4]. For details of the coordinate transformations
	referenced above, see [RFC7748] and [CURVE-REPRESENTATIONS].		referenced above, see [RFC7748] and [CURVE-REPR].
	General parameters (for all curve models):		General parameters (for all curve models):
	p 2^{255}-19		p 2^{255}-19
	(=0x7fffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff		(=0x7fffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff
	ffffffed)		ffffffed)
	h 8		h 8
	n		n
	723700557733226221397318656304299424085711635937990760600195093828		723700557733226221397318656304299424085711635937990760600195093828
	5454250989		5454250989
End of changes. 66 change blocks.
	224 lines changed or deleted		247 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/